One of such indie film production was IMHO District 9, which quite ingeniously removed the political and legal stigmas associated with racism, by introducing a conceptualization of what a different alien race should be. Because suddenly, there's a whole race of intelligent beings, that's not recognized by the concept of the Universal Human Rights Charter. However, at the end of all those intentional chaos and exploitation due to racial segregation, was it all worth it? Within the context of honoring, respecting, and exemplifying humanity themselves as rational and conscience beings.

I enjoyed District 9 very much. I think one issue deeper the film touched on was how racism can be generated in a society, even in one of generally well meaning people. Obviously there is nothing inherently bad about the "Prawns". However, they are highly intelligent and they have special technology, and weaponry.

The MNU corporation selfishly desires money and power which would come with possessing the new tech. By creating false information and marginalizing the populations of these alien visitors a new tribal mentality is created. If the aliens appear bad enough, MNU then becomes free to take the property and dignity form their population and seem justified in the public's eyes.

Even so, I did take some issues with the way the Nigerian arms-dealers were presented. Although it was extremely outrageous and probably satirical in its own right, something about it struck a sour chord with me.

One of such indie film production was IMHO District 9, which quite ingeniously removed the political and legal stigmas associated with racism, by introducing a conceptualization of what a different alien race should be. Because suddenly, there's a whole race of intelligent beings, that's not recognized by the concept of the Universal Human Rights Charter. However, at the end of all those intentional chaos and exploitation due to racial segregation, was it all worth it? Within the context of honoring, respecting, and exemplifying humanity themselves as rational and conscience beings.

I enjoyed District 9 very much. I think one issue deeper the film touched on was how racism can be generated in a society, even in one of generally well meaning people. Obviously there is nothing inherently bad about the "Pawns". However, they are highly intelligent and they have special technology, and weaponry.

The MNU corporation selfishly desires money and power which would come with possessing the new tech. By creating false information and marginalizing the populations of these alien visitors a new tribal mentality is created. If the aliens appear bad enough, MNU then becomes free to take the property and dignity form their population and seem justified in the public's eyes.

Even so, I did take some issues with the way the Nigerian arms-dealers were presented. Although it was extremely outrageous and probably satirical in its own right, something about it struck a sour chord with me.

What you just described is the process of modern socialization, through impersonal agents of socialization known as the mass medias. AKA public relation/advertisement/marketing within the corporate culture. And social science proves just how effective this process can be on humans as a collective, by raising the level of individual conformity to a supermajority at 81%.

Moreover, once such dangerous meme is integrated into the cultural sphere of the host society itself. With the help of existing agents of social control known as the institutions, humans can be swayed into further loosing their moral oversight, comprised of rational and conscience individual selves. Regardless of the secular or religious upbringing from said individuals.

In conclusion, it's IMHO that while certain cultural heritages are comprised of what the best humanity itself has to offer for human society. Humans as social animals are nonetheless both self-righteous and superstitious as a collective, whenever they encountered with the unknown. To the point that our default disposition is one of predisposed copies, especially when we're just rationalizing our own conformity biases on a subconscious level. Which is directly opposite on the continuum of humanity, for it demands ourselves to become rational and conscience beings.

the movie 300 is a racist, colourist war propaganda film where the persian army are all dark skinned some looked demons and grotesque creatures that looked like savages ignoring the fact that Persian Empire was a civilized society with civil and basic human rights and the provinces have some control over thier internal affairs

in the upociming ghengis khan movie they choose a white man to portray an Asian Ghengis Khan they did this before when they choose John Wayne to portray Ghengis Khan in the 1960s.

the movie 21 is a yellowface movie based on a true story where asians were replaced by white actors

a movie about a black cuban was whitewashed when they choose a white actress to portray a black cuban woman

the movie extraordinary measures which is based on a taiwanese doctor curing a disease they choose a white actor ignoring qualified asian american actors

the movie 300 is a racist, colourist war propaganda film where the persian army are all dark skinned some looked demons and grotesque creatures that looked like savages ignoring the fact that Persian Empire was a civilized society with civil and basic human rights and the provinces have some control over thier internal affairs

in the upociming ghengis khan movie they choose a white man to portray an Asian Ghengis Khan they did this before when they choose John Wayne to portray Ghengis Khan in the 1960s.

the movie 21 is a yellowface movie based on a true story where asians were replaced by white actors

a movie about a black cuban was whitewashed when they choose a white actress to portray a black cuban woman

the movie extraordinary measures which is based on a taiwanese doctor curing a disease they choose a white actor ignoring qualified asian american actors

None of them were Inglorious Bastards, which was the film I had in question in the first place, regarding the historical accuracy of racial labeling. Not casting calls going first-come-first-serve. So what's your point? Film makers aren't historians. Don't go off topic with your red herrings fallacy, when you are obviously racist against whites.

None of them were Inglorious Bastards, which was the film I had in question in the first place, regarding the historical accuracy of racial labeling. Not casting calls going first-come-first-serve. So what's your point? Film makers aren't historians. Don't go off topic with your red herrings fallacy,.

you are the one going off topic with this historical accuracy nonsense this was about Quentin Tarantino using the n-word in all of his movies to dehumanize black people. why are you defending a racist institution like hollywood that continue to promote white supremacy?

when you are obviously racist against whites

so this is why you constantly defend hollywood racist castings and actions in thier movies calling me racist towards whites only show you are an uncle tom who defends white racism and white supremacy. only white racists and thier non-white apologists like to cry anti-white racism when somebody point out racism from whites and white supremacy and what makes this strange is that you an Asian man are defending hollywood who won't hire asians to portray asian characters in stories and historical events like ghengis khan but have no problem using them for stereotypical roles. congratulations on admitting that you are an uncle tom who defends white supremacy you remind me of that uncle tom racist who use racist psuedoscience claiming that black women are the least attractive

http://abagond.wordpress.com/2009/11/20/the-white-club/

The white club is the white race seen as a club. Like a club it has members, it has rules about who can join and who cannot, it has duties and privileges. Those who fail to carry out their duties can be kicked out.

Duties:

Accept White American culture as your guide to life. Practise it and do not question it. Your aim is to speak, dress and act like a middle-class White American with a good education. If you do not look white, this is a must. If you look white then a certain degree of freedom is allowed (hippies, goths and hillbillies but not, say, Muslims).

Speak English and speak it with one of the accepted club accents.

Do not seriously question or challenge white racism.

Do not make common cause with blacks or other people of colour.

Have mostly white friends.

Marry a white person. Back in the 1940s breaking this rule would get you kicked out, no questions asked. Even now it is still a strike against you. Not so for white men who marry Asian women.

Review
This landmark work covers new research ground in documenting the significant yet unrecognized barriers of discrimination and marginalization faced by Asian Americans in the United States today. As an often invisible and silent minority, Asian Americans can at last find voice in this brilliant work that recognizes the reality of their experience. The courage, nobility, and honesty of the authors will assist all involved in the struggle for equity and inclusion. --Edna B. Chun, Broward Community College

Most Americans believe Asian Americans are content, do not suffer from discrimination, and are all in the path to whiteness. Chou and Feagin document convincingly with interview data that they are not content, suffer from discrimination, and are, for the most part, regarded as perpetual foreigners. Bravo to the authors for bringing to the fore the racial oppression endured by Asian Americans! --Eduardo Bonilla-Silva, Duke University

Through a compelling analysis of white racism experienced by Asian Americans in their everyday lives, Chou and Feagin offer an insightful critique of research on assimilation that focuses on indicators of integration while ignoring the serious forms of racism examined in this book. --Leland T. Saito, University of Southern California
Product Description
In this pathbreaking book sociologists Rosalind Chou and Joe Feagin examine, for the first time in depth, racial stereotyping and discrimination daily faced by Asian Americans long viewed by whites as the model minority. Drawing on more than 40 field interviews across the country, they examine the everyday lives of Asian Americans in numerous different national origin groups. Their data contrast sharply with white-honed, especially media, depictions of racially untroubled Asian American success. Many hypocritical whites make sure that Asian Americans know their racially inferior place in U.S. society so that Asian people live lives constantly oppressed and stressed by white racism. The authors explore numerous instances of white-imposed discrimination faced by Asian Americans in a variety of settings, from elementary schools to college settings, to employment, to restaurants and other public accommodations. The responses of Asian Americans to the U.S. racial hierarchy and its rationalizing racist framing are traced with some Asian Americans choosing to conform aggressively to whiteness and others choosing to resist actively the imposition of the U.S. brand of anti-Asian oppression. This book destroys any notion that Asian Americans are universally favored by whites and have an easy time adapting to life in this still racist society.

None of them were Inglorious Bastards, which was the film I had in question in the first place, regarding the historical accuracy of racial labeling. Not casting calls going first-come-first-serve. So what's your point? Film makers aren't historians. Don't go off topic with your red herrings fallacy,.

you are the one going off topic with this historical accuracy nonsense this was about Quentin Tarantino using the n-word in all of his movies to dehumanize black people. why are you defending a racist institution like hollywood that continue to promote white supremacy?

when you are obviously racist against whites

so this is why you constantly defend hollywood racist castings and actions in thier movies calling me racist towards whites only show you are an uncle tom who defends white racism and white supremacy. only white racists and thier non-white apologists like to cry anti-white racism when somebody point out racism from whites and white supremacy and what makes this strange is that you an Asian man are defending hollywood who won't hire asians to portray asian characters in stories and historical events like ghengis khan but have no problem using them for stereotypical roles. congratulations on admitting that you are an uncle tom who defends white supremacy you remind me of that uncle tom racist who use racist psuedoscience claiming that black women are the least attractive

And even more red herrings fallacy. I am a human first and foremost, and I condemn racism. That includes the hatred you have towards whites. Or have you so unwitting forgotten your own dehumanization process, you racist.

Once again, I am human. Not Asian. I can speak both English and Mandarin, whereas yourself can only propagate hatred, in the form of racism.

And even more red herrings fallacy. I am a human first and foremost, and I condemn racism. That includes the hatred you have towards whites. Or have you so unwitting forgotten your own dehumanization process, you racist.

do you even know what a red herring fallacy is? no where in that post i made advocate hatred against whites and your contant cry of anti-white racism only show you are an uncle tom somebody who defends white supremacy and insitutions that promote it

And even more red herrings fallacy. I am a human first and foremost, and I condemn racism. That includes the hatred you have towards whites. Or have you so unwitting forgotten your own dehumanization process, you racist.

do you even know what a red herring fallacy is? no where in that post i made advocate hatred against whites and your contant cry of anti-white racism only show you are an uncle tom somebody who defends white supremacy and insitutions that promote it

Your entire thread only focused on condemning fictional white supremacy in films, never once about the real black supremacy in Hollywood. I think the contradicting hypocrisy is as clear as your bias and racial stereotype towards only my person, not my argument.

Your entire thread only focused on condemning fictional white supremacy, never once about the real black supremacy in Hollywood. I think the contradicting hypocrisy is as clear as your bias towards only my person, not my argument.

black supremacy in hollywood? is this man for real? 80%90% of lead roles in hollywood goes towards white actors most movies there are currently plans for new movies which feature yellowface and whitewashing, and other movies which are about to be released and planned to be released are ALL WHITE MOVIES.

it's official you are an uncle tom and a white supreamcist apologist and a sellout

why don't you change your name to the "male version of michelle malkin"

Leave it to ELLE Magazine to photochop the world’s most beautiful woman. Aishwarya Rai, the reigning queen of Indian cinema, model and classically trained dancer is currently on the cover of ELLE India—several shades lighter. Rai’s skin has been lightened and her dark brown hair appears to have a red tint to it.

The Times of India reported the former Miss World is “furious with the bleaching botch-up” and is considering taking legal action against ELLE.

ELLE’s mission is to make women “chic and smart, guide their self-expression, and encourage their personal power,” but their recent covers could lead readers to believe that “chic, smart and personal empowerment” only comes to those with light skin.

This is the second faux pas in recent history for ELLE. Last year the U.S. edition of the magazine made Oscar-nominated actress Gabourey Sidibe a much lighter cover girl. It’s an all too common practice that happens across the beauty industry. Even the untrained eye has become accustomed to digitally altered images, so accustomed that readers would notice an image that has not been altered before one that has.

So we’re not surprised that ELLE retouched Aishwarya Rai’s photo, but the severity of the retouching and lightening is still quite jarring. Not to mention the real implications that these actions have for readers. To that end, Change.org has started a campaign asking the magazine to offer a public apology.

India has a thriving skin lightening beauty industry that includes products with ingredients so hazardous they’ve been banned in the European Union, among others. But India is not alone. A recent study found that 90 percent of the women entering Arizona clinics for mercury poisoning were Chicanas who had been using skin-lightening creams. A Harvard medical school professor notes: “These women had tried so desperately to whiten their skin color that they had poisoned their bodies by applying mercury-based ‘beauty creams’.”

For insight on what goes through the minds of the people doing the retouching check out The New Yorker’s “Pixel Perfect”, which profiles Pascal Dangin, the premier retoucher of fashion photographs (Vanity Fair, W, Harper’s Bazaar, Allure, French Vogue, Italian Vogue, V, and the Times Magazine, among others, also use Dangin.)

I have sat and pondered and wondered. I have inquired about, thought of and searched for the reasons as to why people are racist or beleave and attempt to engrave in others set ideas about a group of people. Why confine the endless beauty of the human being to your preconcieved, unflattering and uninformed image of what it should be. Does it make it easier for you when it acts they ways you said it would? What fragile petty joy does it give you ? Impatience, I think, is a problem some have. Instead of taking time to understand anyone, they make snap judgements because, then they do not have to put any effert into trying to know who person is and not what they they think they are.

A special unit of airport screeners who were supposed to keep a watchful eye out for suspicious behaviours actually engaged in targeted racial profiling, according to witnesses interviewed for a federal report.

The alleged profiling was said to be so pervasive at New Jersey's Newark Liberty International Airport that resentful colleagues called the team 'Mexican hunters'.

Transportation Security Administration (TSA) workers told investigators that screeners routinely singled out Hispanic men for referral to law enforcement under trumped up suspicions, in an orchestrated scheme to pump up numbers.

A federal report dated January 25, 2010 and supporting documents were obtained by The Newark Star-Ledger.

The report is often called the 'Boston Report' because it was prepared by a pair of TSA officers brought in from that city's Logan International Airport.

The report was addressed to Newark’s federal security director at the time, Barbara Bonn Powell.

The report claims a group of TSA screeners called behaviour detection officers, or BDOs, were supposed to look for passengers who appeared nervous or suspicious.

According to official policy, TSA screeners are not supposed to consider race, ethnicity or religion as a factor in security decisions.

However, the report alleges that from early 2008 to late 2009, BDOs routinely looked for Hispanic male passengers, especially Mexicans and Dominicans, to see if they had proper visas or passport stamps.

The Star-Ledger wrote: 'If not, those passengers would be subjected to bag searches, pat downs, questioning and referrals to immigration with bogus behaviours invented by the screeners to cover up the real reason the passengers were singled out'.

The majority of these alleged profiled searches were said to have taken place in the airport's international terminal, Terminal B.

Newark BDO Paul Animone reportedly told investigators: 'It became a joke in the unit, these individuals were called the great Mexican hunters.

'I did not agree or did not go along with these types of referrals, but if I was teamed up with one of these BDOs, I would go along with the referral and perform the bag check.

'When I disagreed with these referrals and brought it to the attention of the BDO managers, I was told by the BDO managers that I was not a team player'.

The TSA acknowledged to The Star-Ledger that policies were 'overstepped' in that time period, and claimed, 'TSA took immediate remedial action and retrained the entire behaviour detection workforce at Newark'.

One BDO was demoted as a result of the government's investigation. Luis Chevere, 57, a retired New York City police officer, was knocked down to the entry level rank of TSO on September 15, 2010. His pay was cut in half.

Mr Chevere is appealing that decision, and claims he is being unfairly singled out because he himself is Hispanic, and because he grew up in Puerto Rico.

Mr Chevere told The Star-Ledger: 'It singled me out and it ignored everybody else, but that was Barbara Powell, that was her doing.

Explaining the demotion, a government official reportedly told him, 'Contrary to BDO training and TSA policy, on numerous dates starting in early 2008 through November 2009, you instructed Behaviour Detection Officers under your supervision to select passengers for behaviour detection referrals based on their appearance or ethnicity'.

According to The Star-Ledger, the profiling was motivated by a culture of meeting numbers, in which managers were pressured to keep up a high rate of referrals of passengers to law enforcement for additional screening.

This pressure was said to go to the top, to site director Ms Powell, who was replaced at Newark in April. She still works for the TSA, now in the Arlington, Virginia office, though she did not respond to the paper.

Managers were accused of telling BDOs to 'make up behaviours' that warranted suspicion, in order to target 'illegal aliens'.

BDO William Tappen said in the report, 'We were being called Mexican Hunters by our peers and coworkers in the airport'.

Meanwhile, in Hawaii, the Transportation Security Administration is set to fire 36 workers, including two high-ranking officials, in the agency's single largest personnel action in history.

Twelve others are to be suspended after an investigation found they did not properly screen baggage at Honolulu International Airport.

The 36 employees were placed on paid administrative leave Friday, including the airport's federal security director and the assistant federal security director for screening.

Update: the Uncle Tom who claim that black women are less attractive using racist pseudoscience has been fired

http://news.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979420722

Black political group demands firing of Fox Business Network host

An African American political organization is demanding that Eric Bolling, the host of Fox Business Network's "Follow The Money" be fired for making what they called racist comments about President Obama and saying that he hosts "hoods in the hizzy."

ColorofChange.org, which bills itself as the nation's largest African American online political organization, said it has collected 65,000 signatures demanding that Bolling be fired for comments, including one in which he said that Obama was "chugging 40s in Ireland" while tornadoes ravaged Missouri.

Bolling also said that Obama had a habit of hosting "hoods in the hizzy," alluding to visits by the president of Gabon and rapper Common, who they said advocated violence against police.

The host on Monday addressed his earlier remarks, saying "we got a little fast and loose with the language and we know it's being interpeted as being disrespectful. And for that, I'm sorry. We did go a bit too far."

"Fox Business and Fox News continue to be safe havens for commentators who try to conjure up race-based fears and peddle racial stereotypes as hard news," said a statement from the group. "If [Fox News head] Roger Ailes fires Bolling, it's a step towards accountability. If he refuses, it will make it abundantly clear to the public and the media that stoking racial division is part of Fox's agenda."

Kevin Magee, executive vice president of Fox Business Network, said in a statement issued Thursday, "I spoke with Eric and his producer and we all agree the line was crossed, thus Monday night's apology. We now consider the matter closed."

For the record, 2:55 p.m., June 16: An earlier version of this post incorrectly referred to Fox Business News instead of Fox Business Network and said the comment about Obama in Ireland was made during last Friday's shows. Also Bolling, not the group, said that Common advocated violence against police. Fox Business Network's executive vice president Kevin Magee was misspelled as MaGee.